Again, if the BE 1A FB schools make most of the BB money, why stay together?
There are several problems with this statement & with the assumptions expressed in the links:
1. Notre Dame was eliminated from the calculations because the poster is under some kind of delusion that Notre Dame will eventually sign on with the football schools. So, the calculations of the basketball credits & NCAA revenue is based on erroneous data. Instead of the 80 - 20 split in revenue, the split with Notre Dame's 7 basketball credits earned during the 5-year period in question is 70 - 30 in favor of the football schools.
2. The poster who originated the thread assumed that the football schools will have earned 80% of the basketball credits by the time of the split because that's what they have done over the past 5 years. That's like setting your direction by looking in the rear view mirror. Things are changing on the basketball front for anyone who is looking forward.
3. The poster also made the claim that the Big East would get 9 - 10 NCAA bids this year & that only 3 of them would go to the basketball schools. I beg to differ. Joe Lunardi of ESPN's Bracketology column does the most comprehensive study of this every year. He is predicting 8 NCAA bids for the Big East, split equally (4 + 4) between the basketball & football schools.
Since this is a basketball thread, I will focus on that:
The problem with the idea that the power in Big East basketball is with the football schools is twofold:
1. It looks only at the question of "What have you done for me lately?"
2. It ignores the depth of strength in each group - or lack thereof.
In regard to #1, success tends to run in cycles & is often associated with a great coach who can build or maintain a program. Cincinnati is a classic example of this. From 1992 - 05, Bobby Huggins took the Bearcats to the NCAA tournament every year - 14 times in 14 years! However, in the previous 14 years, Cincinnati took a doughnut - zero appearnaces in 14 years! Huggins is gone, the program is in disarray. Will the real Cincinnati basketball please stand up?
Likewise, Pitt has gone to the NCAA tournament for 4 straight years. However, you have to go back almost a decade before that to find the last time that they made it to the tournament. Ben Howland built this program, but he's now coaching at UCLA. Jamie Dixon appears to be a fine young coach, but he is still trying to establish this program as his own.
Syracuse & Louisville have been perennial NCAA tournament teams for decades & both have estblished coaches. UConn has joined their ranks in the past 15 years & also has a great coach. However, UConn is a lot like Cincinnati - great since Calhoun built them, but back in the '80s, not a single NCAA appearnace.
West Virginia had a great run in the tournament last year, but that was only the second time in the past dozen years that they've been to the tournament. Hardly a perennial power.
Neither Rutgers nor South Florida brings anything in the way of an established basketball program. Neither has been to the tournament since the early '90s & neither has much of a history - USF: only 2 appearances in school history & Rutgers 6.
The bottom line is that the football schools are a top heavy group in terms of basketball success. So, while they have more basketball credits in the past 5 years than the basketball schools, in the previous 5 years, 4 of the 8 football schools total only 1 credit among them (West Virginia, Pitt, Rutgers, & South Florida).
In contrast, the basketball schools have all made multiple tournament appearances over the past decade & all have traditions that go back for decades, so that they are not dependent on a single coach for their reputations & crowd appeal. There is no South Florida or Rutgers in this group.
Looking forward, the basketball schools have reason to be optimistic with resurgent programs at Villanova, St. John's, Georgetown, & Marquette - all in the hands of talented young coaches with bright futures & great traditions to build on. Notre Dame, Seton Hall, Providence, & DePaul have all been to the tournament in recent years & their histories suggest that they will be back among the elite when their turns cycle through again. Seton Hall in fact looks like a tournament team this year.
In contrast, the most successful programs in the football group are in the hands of coaches who are long in the tooth. No one knows how long it will be before Calhoun & Boeheim are following Huggins out the door. Louisville is established. Pitt & west Virginia will probably continue what they have started, but if any of this group stumbles, there's no indication that the schools at the bottom will rise up to take their place.
So, "the football schools" make most of the basketball money? Not as a group. A handful of them have definitely seen their hay day in recent years. But for anyone who's looking forward instead of in the rear view mirror, the basketball schools are surging forward & the football schools have no guarantees. Cincinnati has been the first to stumble. Who will be next?